As it now stands, California's November ballot will introduce Proposition 8 with these words: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." On Tuesday, proponents of the proposition went to court to change that "inflammatory" language, saying it will unfairly influence voters to reject the measure.

"We feel the ballot language is so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure," said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. She said Attorney General Jerry Brown had failed in his "job to provide ballot titles and summaries that are fair, accurate and not prejudicial."

The legal challenge came hours after same-sex-marriage advocates welcomed a corporate powerhouse to their campaign efforts - Pacific Gas & Electric, which donated $250,000 to Equality California, a prominent group fighting Proposition 8. The utility said it wanted to support a "fundamental right" for its gay and lesbian employees.

For Equality California, PG&E's gift, the group's largest gift from a corporation to date, established that support for gay marriage is "mainstream." Coupled with Brown's ballot language, they were twin reasons for the group to celebrate.

But for ProtectMarriage.com and other groups campaigning for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Brown's ballot language provoked an almost immediate legal challenge.

Advertisement

Protect Marriage's research has found that never in the 50-year history of statewide ballot measures has the attorney general used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title of a ballot measure, Kerns said. Proposition 8 supporters are seeking an expedited hearing in Superior Court in Sacramento, as soon as this week, to challenge the attorney general's title and summary.

The attorney general's office plans to defend the ballot language in court.

"We carried out our statutory duty to accurately summarize the measure," said Gareth Lacy, Brown's spokesman. "In this case, we take into account an extremely important Supreme Court decision that affirms the right to same-sex marriage."

Supreme Court ruling

Proposition 8 would erase that right, which was established by the California Supreme Court ruling May 15, he said.

The Supreme Court had not ruled when the attorney general's office last year prepared the summary that appeared on the petitions voters signed to place Proposition 8 on the ballot. That November 2007 title read: "Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment"

Analyst's opinion

Brown's ballot summary also will remind voters that a vote against same-sex marriage might dent state and local tax revenues. A July 17 opinion from the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office concluded: "This measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars."

One veteran political observer charged that Brown's possible run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was a factor in the ballot language.

"It's clear to me that what Jerry Brown is trying to do is deliver for a political group that is crucial to his election for governor," said Tony Quinn, a political analyst with historic ties to Republicans who called Brown's phrasing "unethical." "The title ought to be 'Marriage,' or 'Rules Regarding Marriage,' - something that is clearly neutral in its language," Quinn said. "If you had a very conservative attorney general and he had a title to Proposition 4" - a constitutional amendment that would require a waiting period before the termination of a minor's pregnancy - "that said, 'Saves the Lives of the Unborn,' or something like that, you'd have howling from the liberal side."

For same-sex marriage supporters, Tuesday's declaration from PG&E was about more than money. In addition to a big donation, PG&E said it would help launch an "Equality Business Advisory Council," recruiting other corporate leaders to campaign for same-sex marriage rights.

"PG&E is sending a very strong message that opposition to Proposition 8 is mainstream; it is Main Street, and it is a position that corporations who care about what kind of California we live in will want to be involved in," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the executive committee of Equality for All.

PG&E also made political donations to oppose Proposition 187, the 1994 initiative to deny social services to illegal immigrants, and to oppose Proposition 209, the 1996 vote on a constitutional amendment prohibiting affirmative action. Both propositions passed.

"We felt the right to marry is a fundamental right, and we are proud to represent our employees who have advocated for that," Darlene Chiu, a PG&E spokeswoman, said Tuesday. "It is a civil right and we're trying to do the right thing."